XFiles Friday: Leaping to the next conclusion

(Book: I Don’t Have Enough FAITH to Be an ATHEIST, by Geisler and Turek, chapter 8 )

Up to now, Geisler and Turek have focused on eliminating atheism as a possibly true worldview, which they claim to have accomplished in chapters 1 through 7. Polytheism (and inadvertently Trinitarianism) were likewise disposed of at the beginning of Chapter 8. According to G&T, that leaves only three possible contenders for the title of True and Accurate Worldview.

The main point is that the right box top for the universe shows a theistic God. That means that only one of the three major theistic world religions can make the cut of truth: either Judaism, Christianity, or Islam. Now, logically, all of these theistic world religions cannot be true—because they make mutually exclusive claims. Moreover, it could be that none of these world religions is completely true. Maybe they have theism right but little else. That’s possible. However, since we know beyond a reasonable doubt that God exists and that he has the characteristics we’ve listed above—characteristics that include design, purpose, justice, and love—then we should expect him to reveal more of himself and his purpose for our lives. This would require that he communicate with us. One of the three major theistic religions is likely to contain that communication.

Having leaped to the conclusions that God is characterized by design, purpose, justice and love, it’s not surprising that Geisler and Turek would take this opportunity to jump to a number of other conclusions, such as the conclusion that God is a He.

Let’s just think about that one of a moment. Gender roles are fundamentally reproductive roles. Our own psychological makeup is such that we tend to associate a number of additional characteristics to each gender role, as well as social expectations, traditions, and other stereotypes. But masculinity and femininity are fundamentally defined by sexual reproductive function.

Geisler and Turek have just got done declaring that there can never be more than one God, because God is infinite. By their own definition, then, God cannot reproduce, since there cannot be more than one of It, nor can It die and be replaced by a successor, since a God that has come to an end must necessarily be a finite being. God therefore cannot have a reproductive role, and cannot therefore be male.

That’s the conclusion G&T should have come to if they had stopped to think about God’s reproductive status. But they didn’t. As with their prior discussion of what we can “know beyond a reasonable doubt,” they have a clear picture in mind of what conclusion they want to reach, and they reach it by simply mentioning some evidence, and then claiming that this evidence leads to that conclusion, whether there’s any real connection between the two or not.

They do the same thing with the idea that, given God’s allegedly known characteristics, it is reasonable to conclude that one of the world’s three major monotheistic religions must be correct. It’s certainly true that we ought to expect a loving, purposeful, and omnipotent deity to be communicating with us, should there be anything He (or It) wants us to know. But notice the flaw in G&T’s reasoning: if the loving, purposeful, all-wise Creator of the Universe set out to communicate truth to us, why would there be three mutually-exclusive religions competing for the title of True and Accurate Worldview?

Communication is only successful when the recipient of the message understands what is being communicated. If the message is garbled, tampered with, or unheard, the message-sender has failed to communicate. Assuming that God did try to communicate a true worldview to mankind, then, our first and most obvious observation is that God has largely failed, as demonstrated by the fact that at least two of the 3 major monotheistic religions have gotten it wrong, not to mention all the polytheists, pagans, animists, atheists, and other non-Christian alternatives out there.

A God Who had an infinite desire to communicate the truth, coupled with infinite wisdom in determining how to transmit this message intact, coupled with infinite power to implement His wise design, could not possibly fail to impart to each of us a true and accurate worldview. The fact that Geisler and Turek find it necessary to write a book about apologetics is proof of the absence of any such divine attempt, ability, or desire.

Next time, we’ll take up the classic rationalization that apologists often use to try and wiggle out of this dilemma: free will. I hope you will choose to be there. 😉

4 Responses to “XFiles Friday: Leaping to the next conclusion”

  1. Martin Says:

    I think you’ve missed an even more fundamental problem here, and with it a sneaky little cop-out by the authors. The statement referring to “either Judaism, Christianity, or Islam” having the truth, is based on the false assumption that there are only three conflicting view-points.

    Of course, many branches of Christianity are at odds with each other – Catholics and Protestants can’t both be right on everything for example, and neither have much kind to say about the Westboro Baptist Church.

    All Christians can’t be right, a susbtantial number must be wrong, and yet it looks as though the authors are going to simply ignore this internal inconsistency.

  2. Rowan Says:

    Definitely! Just like to say I really enjoy reading your posts, and am looking forward to the next one.
    As I read it I was thinking that Geisler and Turek would probably answer this by saying something about how most people don’t want to hear, or suppress the truth; but if God is infinitely powerful and knowledgeable, surely he is infinitely capable of presenting us with proof of his existence sufficient to convince us?

  3. David D.G. Says:

    Your deconstructions are marvelous, and this series of them is particularly fun. At this rate, by the time you are done, I don’t think there will be much left of their book except for a few whimpering commas. Keep up the great work!

    ~David D.G.

  4. chigliakus Says:

    Is that it for G&T then? Congratulations on keeping up with your X-Files Friday posting schedule over the past year (or longer?)
    I’m looking forward to your dissection of the free will argument. I’ve found most Christians don’t understand that their ability to make choices does not guarantee the existence of [the Christian definition of] free will.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: